Johnson v. Whirlpool Corporation

Filing 64

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 62 plaintiff's motion for extension of time be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff shall have until 10/27/2017 to file his response to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/19/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

ROBERT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

14
15

ORDER

v.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

12
13

Case No. 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH

Presently before the court is Johnson v. Whirlpool Corporation, case number 2:15-cv02425-JCM-CWH.
On October 11, 2017, plaintiff Robert Johnson filed a motion to extend time to file a

16

response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62). On October 17, 2017,

17

defendant Whirlpool Corporation filed a response. (ECF No. 63).

18

Plaintiff cites in support of his motion to extend time the statement in Ahanchian v.

19

Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) that extensions of time should be liberally

20

granted in order to “effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.”

21

(ECF No. 62); see 624 F.3d at 1258–59. Plaintiff alleges that counsel’s business related travel

22

during the week of October 16th will impede efforts to comply with current deadline of October

23

19, 2017. (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff cites counsel’s continued travel over the course of the next

24

few weeks to support an extension of fourteen business days to file a response. Id.

25

Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates good cause to support granting an extension of time to

26

file a response. An extension will further the judicial purpose of ensuring that the motion is

27

decided on the merits. See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1258–59. Further, the motion was timely

28

filed and defendant will not be prejudiced by an extension. However, as defendant notes,

1

plaintiff’s requested extension length appears excessive, especially considering that plaintiff’s

2

motion does not discuss why counsel could not draft a response prior to October 16, 2017. (ECF

3

No. 63); see (ECF No. 62). The court will therefore grant plaintiff leave to file his response on

4

or before October 27, 2017.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 62)

7

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, consistent with the

8

foregoing. Plaintiff shall have until October 27th, 2017 to file his response to defendant’s

9

motion for summary judgment.

10

DATED THIS 19th day of October, 2017.

11
12

JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2